State v. Coal Co.

4 Ohio N.P. 115
CourtCuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1897
StatusPublished

This text of 4 Ohio N.P. 115 (State v. Coal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Coal Co., 4 Ohio N.P. 115 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1897).

Opinion

Lamson, J.

The facts upon which the defendant predicates its motion to quash the service of summons in this case, and to dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction, are in substance as follows: The defendant is a corporation for the purposes of mining and manufacturing, and in connection therewith, operating a railroad, under the laws of the state of Ohio governing the creation of such an organization. Its character fixed the location of its principal office in the city of Cleveland, county of Cuyahoga, state of Ohio. The defendant is the owner of certain coal mines situated in the counties of Perry, Hocking and Athens of this state, and in 1886 constructed a railroad about two miles in length running from its said mines to the line of the Columbus, Hocking Valley & Toledo Railway Company. The defendant does not now and never has owned any property in the county of Cuyahoga, and has not had an office in the city of Cleveland in said county for at least twelve years last past, and during that time has done no business of any kind in said county, but has had its principal office located in the county of Franklin, in the cityr of Columbus, where its principal business is and has during that time been transacted. In April, 1895, the . board of directors of the defendant company passed a [116]*116resolution directing that the principal office of the company should be changed from Cleveland, Cuyahoga county, to the city of Columbus, in Franldin county; and some time before this action was commenced, caused the publication of the passage of said resolution to be made as required by sec. 8311 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio. No officer or agent of the defendant company was found within the county of Cuyahoga, and the summons which was served in this case was issued to the sheriff of Franklin conn by, state of Ohio, and served upon the defendant by handing a copy thereof to W A. Miller, president, and W. N. Cott, treasurer and secretary of said company, in said city of Columbus and county of Franklin.

Now, the defendant says that this action ivas not rightfully brought in the county of Cuyahoga, and therefore a summons could not be issued to the sheriff of the count3r of Franklin to be served upon the officers of the defendant company. The correctness of this claim depends upon the construction to be placed upon sec. 3866 R. S., under which the defendant company was incorporated, and sec. 3311 R. S., providing for the incorporation of railroad companies, and Sec. 5026 R. S., providing in what counties certain actions against corporations may be brought.

The plaintiff claims that it has a right to maintain this action against the defendant in this county, because, by the charter, the principal office of the company, that is, the situs of the company, is located in the county of Cuyahoga; and therefore, under the provisions of sec. 5026, the action is rightly brought in said county of Ciyahoga; and being rightfully brought in said county, under the provisions of sec. 5088, the summons in the action could be issued to the county of Franklin, and there served upon the officers of the defendant in that county. Section 5026, so far as it is applicable to this question, reads as follows:

“An action against a corporation created under the laws of this state, may be brought in the county in which such corporation is situated or had its principal office or place of business.”

And the plaintiff says this defendant corporation is situated and has its principal office in the county of Cuyahoga, in contemplation of law by the terms of its charter, although as a matter of fact it does its business in the city of Columbus, in Franklin county.

In answer to this I do not understand that the defendant company by its counsel disputes the claim that the action may be maintained against a corporation created under the laws of this state in any county which its charter designates as the location of its principal office or place of business, although as a matter of facs rio principal office is maintained in that county; and if so, then the service under the section named might be made by a summons sent into a foreign county upon the officers found jn that count3T.

The answer which the defendant company makes to this claim by the plaintiff company is, that neither in fact nor in law' was the principal office or situs of the defendant company in Cuyahoga county at the time of the institution of this suit. That it was not in fact in said county, is apparent from the statement of facts in the case. Whether or not its situs in contemplation of law was in Cuyahoga county at the time this action was commenced, depends upon the effect to be given to the admitted action of the board of directors of the defendant company, in April, 1895, which was the adoption by said board of a resolution directing that the principal office of the company should be changed from Cleveland, Cuyahoga county, to thecit3T of Columbus, Franklin county, of this state, and a publication made thereafter of this action on the part of said board. The defendant company says that by this action on the part of its board, its charter, so far as it fixed the situs of the company in Cuy[117]*117.ahoga county, was amended so as to fix the situs of said company in Franklin county, of this state.

The correctness of this claim made by the defendant depends upon the effect to be given to sec. 8866 of the Revised Statutes of this state, section 3866 of the Rev. Stat. Ohio,provides: “That companies organized for the purpose of manufacturing, mining, etc., may, when such purpose is stated in the articles of incorporation, construct a railorad, etc., from its mine, quarry or manufactury, to any other railroad or any canal, etc., within or upon the borders of this state; and shall, in respect to •such railroad, be subject to and governed by the provisions of chap. 2.

Chapter 2 provides for the construction, operation, etc. of railroad ■corporations; and sec. 3311, under the general head of “Railroad Companies,” and under the sub-division head of “Regulations,” provides as follows: “Bach company shall, as soon as convenient after its organization, establish a principal or general office at some point on the line of ts road, or on the line of any road in this state with which it connects or has running arrangements, and may change the same at pleasure; and •shall give public notice of such establishment or change, m some newspaper published on its line within this state; and the office of the president, secretary and treasurer of the company shall be kept at such principal or general office, or at some other point on the hne of the road of the company within this state, and a record kept there of all the proceedings of the company, to be open at reasonable hours to the inspection of any stock-holders of the company.”

Now, the defendant says that, having constructed a railroad of two miles in length under its charter as.it was authorized to do by sec. 3866 of the Revised Statutes, it then came under the provisions of sec. 8311 of the Revised Statutes as to the establishment and change of its general •office; and therefore its action in April, 1895, by its Board of Directors was effectual in the amending of the. charter of the company so as to change its situs from the county of Cuyahoga to the county of Franklin, in the state of Ohio; and this company was thus brought under the operations of sec. 3311 by force of the following provision in sec. 8866, to-wit: “And shall in respect to such railroad be subject to and governed by the provision of chap. 2.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Ohio N.P. 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-coal-co-ohctcomplcuyaho-1897.